RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


war's over, everyone home(69 posts)

war's over, everyone homeDougSloan
Apr 7, 2003 8:39 PM
Got him? Sure seems like it.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/07/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The U.S. military dropped a "large amount of ordnance" on a building in a residential neighborhood of Baghdad on Monday based on "time-sensitive intelligence" that some senior Iraqi officials, possibly including Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his two sons, were there, U.S. officials said early Tuesday.

***

The official said there was a sense of optimism that top Iraqi figures, perhaps including Saddam and one or both of his sons, were in the building. The official declined to be more specific.
re: war's over, everyone homeJon Billheimer
Apr 7, 2003 9:54 PM
I hope this isn't false optimism. His death will mercifully shorten the war and save lives, particularly those of the Iraqis. On the upside, there has not been the awful bloodshed feared and predicted once the urban fighting started...if one can consider the death and destruction already suffered is an "upside".
We didn't get him the first time?Spoiler
Apr 7, 2003 11:16 PM
So does this mean that the strike the first night was a failure? Does this mean that the same time-sensitive intelligence confirmed that he was indeed alive?
The precision guided munitions............Len J
Apr 8, 2003 4:27 AM
destroyed a residential area of Bagdad that was 300 yards by 300 yards. Go outside and walk off an area that large to get a sense of how many residences were destroyed in this "precision strike". I realize that he is using civilians for sheilds but we have destroyed his ability to lead his country, was it really necessary to make this strike?

Flame away, in our bloodlust it seems that we can justify just about anything.

Len
FinallyHoopes of glory
Apr 8, 2003 5:31 AM
A voice of moderation, commonsense, and reason: I was beginning to think the whole world had gone mad.

I note also that, with more precision, a US tank fired on the media hotel this morning: further innocent deaths and injuries.

What on earth is going on?
been reported...ClydeTri
Apr 8, 2003 5:33 AM
been reported for several days that that hotel had Iraqi snipers firing out of it..if a reporter is in a hotel and he sees or hears snipers using it, I would think common sense would say you are now in a target...
Even if there wereHoopes of glory
Apr 8, 2003 5:37 AM
snipers firing off the hotel, I don't see and justification for an M1 firing directly INTO it (14th Floor) in the full knowledge of the almost certain civilian death and injury.

I couldn't disagee more. Of course Sadam will use civilians as a shield. What are the reporters supposed to do - fight the snipers off? Just leave the country?

Killing/injuring the civilian reporters (and others) to get to the snipers is about as square on a war crime as you can get, IMO.
If I was a reporter in that hotel.ClydeTri
Apr 8, 2003 5:40 AM
I would have long since gotten the h*ll out of dodge...they are in a war zone..anything goes...it is far from a war crime to do what the M1 allegedly did..
Oh rightHoopes of glory
Apr 8, 2003 5:51 AM
so your attitude is "unlucky civilians, we don't give a sh1t, you're in the wrong place".

What the hell is wrong with you? These are innocent people you know - sons, fathers, mothers etc. What don't you understand about killing them? This is not a video game, or a movie, this is hundreds if not thousands of real lives that are being destroyed here in the name of what - we have a tank so we have a right to kill who the hell we want to, innocent or not?

And the fact that you wouldn't have the bravery to report, to let the world know what's happening, is very far from a justification for killing by any sane standard.
when the iraqi military...ClydeTri
Apr 8, 2003 5:58 AM
starts using that site as a "base of operations" it becomes a miltary target..like it or not. The same could be said for any installation such as a school or mosque. Should we bomb them all indescriminately? No, of course not. Each is a unique situation. Any reporter who stays in a war torn city is assuming responsibility. The reports in baghdad have no freedom to move about and report the truth anyway. They have had "minders" and cannot move about freely. They are not able to do their job anyway.
Oh well, fair enough thenHoopes of glory
Apr 8, 2003 6:16 AM
may as well kill them all.

Do you make this up, or just listen to the bees in your head?
General Sherman put it best...ClydeTri
Apr 8, 2003 6:19 AM
"War is hell." simple and to the point. There will be innocent lives lost in all wars. Wishing it away does not make it so.
Oh well that's fine too thenHoopes of glory
Apr 8, 2003 6:26 AM
as long as one can quote pointelss 3 word aphorisims, all's well.

What about making at least a token effort to reduce the number of innocents killed - even if they are only reporters-who-don't-do-their-jobs-and-knuckle-under-Iraqi-minders-and-snipers-worthless-scum? Like by not firing tank rounds into hotels packed with civilians, for example.

Oddly the US/West were the first to complain when this sort of thing happened in, for example, the Former Soviet Union.

I can hardy believe I am having his conversation with someone who has evolved sufficiently to use a keyboard - it defies belief.
Oh well that's fine too thenClydeTri
Apr 8, 2003 6:31 AM
They have avoided innocent deaths to a large amount. They could have started leveling the whole city day one, bombed the dams, flooded ten of thousands of homes. YOu are the one who doesnt get it. You would let them set up and fire from the hotels and not retaliate..I am glad you are not in charge of the military, we would lose.
I am beginning to thinkHoopes of glory
Apr 8, 2003 6:37 AM
you are trolling here.

Your argument for killing civilians is really that "it's OK to kill some when we could have avoided - we could have killed a load more if we'd have wanted to"?

You have nothing to tell me about war on the ground - I spend 18 years in the military. At no point did I, or anyone around me, fail to take an opportunity to spare civilian lives, even when that might have meant an increase in military losses - it's called the responsibility that comes with power.

An M1 comes is engaged by small arms, and fires into a hotel. That is avoidable, and is not how things are supposed to be.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2928153.stm
So, as an 18 year veteranmoneyman
Apr 8, 2003 8:09 AM
What would you do? How would you stop small arms and rocket fire from a sniper on top of a hotel? A single sniper can pin down entire companies, and you no doubt know that. It seems to me that the options are pretty limited. I would think that US forces could employ their own sniper, or they could do what they did which was to use overwhelming force.

Why do you think the Iraqi snipers were on that particular hotel? Do you suppose that they knew the press was there and that the US was taking great pains to avoid non-combatant casualties? War is not fair. It sometimes strikes broadly and indiscriminately. While this is not justifying war, it is far better today than in the past. April 6&7 marked the 141st anniversary of the battle of Shiloh in the Civil War. In two days fighting of a combined force of 65,000 Union and 44,000 Confederate troops, there were more than 24,000 casualties.

I heard a reporter ask Gen Cook at the press briefing in Qatar today for guarantees of journalist safety. I'm not sure what he expected, but Gen Cook said war is a dangerous business and the journalists are in the middle of it. If a war correspondent wants the glory, he must be willing to take the risk. It is hard for me to believe that they don't realize that they could get killed.

I empathize with your distraught countenance over civilian deaths. I, too, am bothered by it. But the fact is, innocents have died in all wars. It's not right. It just is.

$$
wellHoopes of glory
Apr 8, 2003 8:24 AM
small arms v M1 is no contest. It doesn't begin to matter. In no way does that justify slamming a tank round into the middle of the hotel. There is a line, and that's waaaaay beyond it.

The point is probably this. I suspect that the tank crew didn't know what they were firing at. Which raises an interesting question about what is going on with command and control in this war. We have seen to many blue on blue incidents, especially with air power. It seems to be indicitive of far too much of an "fire first, ask questions after" attitude, ragardless of the immediate need, or otherwise, to engage targets.

This is not a conventional high-intensity war, where there can be a need for rapid, high fatality, non-discriminatory engagement. There was no military need to kill those journalists, or the number of civilians we have; we are choseing to do it. And that makes me very uncomfortable.
Oh relax. We just destroyed the villageOldEdScott
Apr 8, 2003 8:29 AM
in order to save it.
Have a read of this...Hoopes of glory
Apr 8, 2003 8:47 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,932020,00.html
So,moneyman
Apr 8, 2003 8:53 AM
What would you do?

Assume that you are the commander on site and the scenario was yours to decide. I really would like to know, not to judge you right or wrong, but rather to know what a proper miltary response might be, given the level of your experience and training. Thanks.

$$
SpecificallyHoopes of glory
Apr 8, 2003 9:06 AM
It's hard to say without being there on the ground, obviously. However,

1) If I was to engage, I would fire warning shots first, and do so with machine gun fire, rather than order and immediate tank rounds attack (we know, albeit retrospectively) that the jouros got out of the building after we had opened up. Assuming I had some reasonable assets to task (a few MGs, APCs, own snipers etc) - it's really not that hard to stop/win a fire-fight against a few militia firing from a hotel.

This assumes that there was no immediate serious unavoidable threat to friendly forces - it seems from the reports that there wasn't.

2) Ultimately, give the present scenario, to avoid certain civilian deaths, I would either sit there and let them snipe at my M1 till the were bored/run out of ammo/disappear, no skin off my nose, or withdraw. This is now a low-intensity operation, where gaining the trust and confidence of the population is more important than taking out every sniper we see immediately and at any cost. We can afford to lose/avoid a few small battles to win the war.

Look at how Basra was taken. Measured, restrained operations to clear the city itself, once the main opposition was thwarted. The population turned and identified (and even rounded up) our oppositon for us, once they had the confidence to act.

I'm not saying that any of this is easy - it isn't, but there are way of fighting and ways of fighting - you can make choices and judgement calls.
Thanksmoneyman
Apr 8, 2003 9:36 AM
I appreciate the insight. Makes sense. Sounds like there is more to the story than what we are getting.

$$
Seen the video?Hoopes of glory
Apr 9, 2003 12:40 AM
I have now seen the incident.

M1 on a bridge approx 1500m from the hotel. No threat to it from small arms, or anything else that might have been in that hotel, whatsoever at that range. In simple terms, even if anything hit at that range, it would bounce off. Also not firing to cover close troops as far as I could see, and no such claim has been made.

I therefore hold my view - that was a very very regrettable, completely uncesessary, and probably highly counter-productive incident. Inexcusable.
if you're so vehemently against civilian deathsNo_sprint
Apr 8, 2003 12:50 PM
you've got a lot of other wars to complain about. This one is insignificant in comparison.

There is just no comparison in regards to the precision in this day in age compared to history. There is just no comparison to the intent not to encur collateral damage of the U.S. in this day in age to that of most or all other wartime nations in all of history.

50% of our proposed targets were denied due to possible collateral damage. The ability to so precisely target hasn't existed prior to this time.
Absolutley notHoopes of glory
Apr 9, 2003 12:45 AM
No civilian deaths are "insignificant".

Of course some degree of killing of civilians is enevitable. However, there are ways of reducing/minimising them, especially in a conflict such as this, and there are ways of making them far more plentiful.

Currently, the coalition is does not, in my view, seem to be totally committed to the former approach.

FWIW I say this as with 18 years military service, and as a ex-lecturer in military tactics as the University of London UK, and a lecturer in Psyops to the military.
Who said a civilian death is insignificant? Not me. nm.No_sprint
Apr 9, 2003 7:36 AM
So what is this supposed to mean?Hoopes of glory
Apr 9, 2003 7:38 AM
"if you're so vehemently against civilian deaths
you've got a lot of other wars to complain about. This one is insignificant in comparison."
So what is this supposed to mean?No_sprint
Apr 9, 2003 8:54 AM
In comparing the number of civlian deaths, this one is insigificant in comparison to many other conflicts. In many past conflicts, many attempted to maximize civlian deaths.
just watched the pentagon briefing....ClydeTri
Apr 8, 2003 10:23 AM
and supposedly the tank was getting both small arm fire and rpg......
Your mesurements are off.Alpedhuez55
Apr 8, 2003 5:35 AM
300 Yards by 300 yards? You mesurements are a little off there. Are you getting your figures from the Iraqi Information Minister?

THey did not take out a neigborhood, they took out 1 or 2 buildings, not 6 city blocks. The largest area I heard was about 40 to 60 meters on CNN. From the video, it looks smaller than that. THat is at least 1/20 the size that you are suggesting was taken out. The video cleary shows it was a percision attack.

Command and control is a legit target, even if they are not very effective monet. It is too bad that the Bath Party likes to use civilians and journalists as shields. It is all the more reason why they need to be reomooved.

Mike Y.
Measurements were reported by.........Len J
Apr 8, 2003 5:45 AM
BBC, Fox, CBS & on CNN this morning. I hope yours are more correct but, the video coming form the bomb site showed an area larger than 40 X 60.

Len
Looks bad enough....Hoopes of glory
Apr 8, 2003 5:47 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2928377.stm
I stand corrected.......Len J
Apr 8, 2003 5:52 AM
"18 meter crater with debris 300 meters away"

As in most war reporting, first reports can't always be trusted. Glad I was wrong.

Sorry for spreading mis-information.

Len
Who do you think lived in that neighborhood?Continental
Apr 8, 2003 6:23 AM
Do you think the area was populated by people who worked hard, contributed to society, and became wealthy through their honest efforts?

There is a disturbing but necessary calculus. The most compassionate action possible is to ruthlessly eliminate evil. If we killed 10,000 innocents to save millions of lives over several generations and to provide an opportunity for liberty, then we did a great and good thing. If you don't think that eliminating the Hussien regime will save millions of lives over the next generations, then you are living in a fantasy world.
You are scaring memohair_chair
Apr 8, 2003 7:05 AM
If we killed 10,000 innocents to save millions of lives over several generations and to provide an opportunity for liberty, then we did a great and good thing.

That is one of the scariest things I've heard in a long time. Even if you are only exaggerating to make a point, the thinking behind the point is scary. I believe the word for this is "genocide." Or do you prefer "cultural cleansing." Talk about playing God! No one has the foresight necessary to make that kind of decision.

Kill them all, let God sort them out.
You are scaring meClydeTri
Apr 8, 2003 7:21 AM
lets put it this way...Saddam has been responsible for an estimated 1,500,000 million arab deaths in the last 25 years. YOu have to kill 10,000 people to remove him, thus preventing the future murder of many more people. Is this a good thing overall? Some could rightfully argue so. The sad thing is that wasnt done earlier some might argue.
like those Jewsmohair_chair
Apr 8, 2003 7:34 AM
The Jews are responsible for so many problems in history, so why don't we just kill them all for the sake of future generations?

The Armenians are responsible for so many problems in history, so why don't we just kill them all for the sake of future generations?

The Albanians are responsible for so many problems in history, so why don't we just kill them all for the sake of future generations?

...
no..the correct analogy...ClydeTri
Apr 8, 2003 7:36 AM
would be the killing of german civilians to oust the nazis....had it been done in 1938...six million jews might have lived...
the question is...ClydeTri
Apr 8, 2003 7:44 AM
Are there crucial points in world history where the killing of a group of people, the guilty but with some "innocents" alongside, can be warranted for the good of mankind in the overall picture? Some people think that such moments and situations exist. Had somebody been able to drop a load of bombs on a building early in WWII where Hitler was, killing him, but taking a few hundreds of innocents along with him would it have been moral? Would it have been a good thing in the big picture? Many people would argue yes. Having the wisdom to know when such a point in history is reached is the crucial factor. Saddam is supposedly responsible for over 1,500,000 deaths. Could mankind have benefitted from his demise years ago, even if it required the loss of innocents? Many would argue yes, but many might argue not.
the problem is ...OldEdScott
Apr 8, 2003 7:55 AM
You're basing a moral imperative on an unknowable future. I could say: We have 200 SARS cases in this country, and a pandemic might break loose from that group and kill millions. It would be better to kill a mere 200 people now and burn their bodies along with the virus than to risk millions of deaths.

If you want to go after an evil like Saddam and rid it from the current world, fine. It's just that making your calculation -- x innocent deaths now is worth preventing imponderable y innocent deaths down the road -- is enough to leave me queasy. All sorts of bloody totalitarians have bases their killing on trying to manipulate the future.
oldedscott..ClydeTri
Apr 8, 2003 7:58 AM
the key question is does that answer become apparent at some point? ...we all agree it became apparent that at some point Hitler had to be stopped...as I said..the crucial decision is WHEN does it become clear that an evil person/regieme must be stopped....
different once he's a proven killerDougSloan
Apr 8, 2003 8:01 AM
Saddam is a known killer and a continuing threat. At that point, he becomes a legitimate target, and he can't be allowed to hide behind his civilians to avoid being killed/captured.

BTW, from what I've read, he murders more of his innocent people every single year than we might accidentally or intentionally in this entire war. I think that makes the justification fairly straightforward.

There is ample historical precedent, right or wrong, too.

Doug
Agreed. Stopping a known and continuing butcher isOldEdScott
Apr 8, 2003 8:14 AM
just fine. And that's sufficient justification. That's all it takes.

I dislike any calculus that says "We'll sacrifice this acceptable number of innocents so future innocents will be spared." Maybe in this case it can be justified, but I can cite a million cases in which it would lead to the gas chambers or the Killing Fields. It is a slippery moral imperative to base action on.
so, old ed...ClydeTri
Apr 8, 2003 8:19 AM
Saddam is responsible for approx 1,500,000 deaths according to many sources, including the leftist Amnesty International...of which 100,000 to 200,000 were his own civilians gassed..does he qualify?
I would be terrifically pleased toOldEdScott
Apr 8, 2003 8:40 AM
hear that Saddam Hussein was fried in that bunker last night, or anywhere else for that matter. You can review any post I've ever put up here, and find nothing to contradict that. I oppose the war as a policy matter, not because I wouldn't cheerfully slit Saddam's throat myself, if I still remembered how.

If innocent civilians were killed in doing so, I wouldn't shrug that off as an acceptable tradeoff, given the millions and zillions of unborn babies we have saved from Saddam's butchery. I would regret it very much, and I would have done anything possible to avoid as many civilian deaths as possible. As a matter of morality and policy, we have to believe there is NO acceptable number of innocent deaths. (If you think so, is there a cutoff? -- "10,000 is OK, 10,001 is too many."

Of course, we're at war, and there WILL be innocent deaths. But it is a matter to regret and mourn, not an abstract figure in what can only be at bottom a cynical moral calculation.
Would we let disease kill 20 millionContinental
Apr 8, 2003 9:17 AM
because vaccinating the population would kill 2000? Or would we play God? Tyrants are disease. Just wars are innoculations.
Agreed. What a totalitarian statement. The Khmer Rouge wouldOldEdScott
Apr 8, 2003 7:33 AM
approve.
Khmer Rouge wouldn't approveContinental
Apr 8, 2003 10:40 AM
The Khmer Rouge, Hitler, Stalin, and countless other murdering tyrants did not consider the disturbing calculus of civilian war casualities. They attempted to maximize civilian casualities, not minimize them. It is a measure of the morality of our military that there is a limit to acceptable civilian casualities, and it is clear that much effort, cost, and risk has been incurred to minimize "collateral damage". I think that what is disturbing to you is that you also have your acceptable limits, but don't want to think about it and face them.
OK, you said:OldEdScott
Apr 8, 2003 11:05 AM
"The most compassionate action possible is to ruthlessly eliminate evil. If we killed 10,000 innocents to save millions of lives over several generations and to provide an opportunity for liberty, then we did a great and good thing."

I can hear Pol Pot saying that. "It is a great and good thing to kill 2 million who stand in the way of our perfect future, where many million more will live in bliss."

It's a totalitarian attitude.

I think I would have been more comfortable if you hadn't referred to killing civilians in service of future happiness a 'great and good thing.' It's not a great and good thing. It's a terrible, unfortunate circumstance forced upon us by the imperative of destroying a current evil. One hopes a better future derives from the suffering we inflict on the present. Maybe that will be some comfort for the families left behind.

I know what my acceptable limit for civilian casualties is: Zero. Anything above that is unacceptable. That it may be necessary is tragic, and I may be willing to endure it, but I certainly won't use the adjectives 'great and good' to describe the killing.

But then I guess you're more 'ruthless' than me.
I see the error in my wordingContinental
Apr 8, 2003 11:47 AM
I didn't intend "great and good" to describe the killing of innocent people. Perhaps I should have said "If 10,OOO innocent people were unintentionally killed in a valient and successful effort to eliminate the reign of an evil tyrant, the loss of life would be tragic, but what the warriors achieved would be a great and good thing."

I firmly believe that if we would not accept civilian casualities then evil would win and we would live under tyrannical rule. I don't know if we would be German speaking Nazis, Russian speaking Stalinists, or some other victims of our own government, but we would not be free speaking Americans. I firmly believe that if we don't continue to accept civilian casualities while fighting tyrants, then our descendants will live under tyranny. If I were living under tyranny I'd want to be at risk of becoming a civilian victim of war rather than the certaintly of remaining a victim of tyranny. I firmly believe that most people living under tyranny hold these same values. If extending these value to other people and cultures is arrogant, then we need more arrogance.
Actually...bnlkid
Apr 8, 2003 11:31 AM
We didn't give a rip about civilian casualties when we carpet bombed Dresden or dropped two nukes on Japan. How soon we forget our own history.
And if the threat were great enough weContinental
Apr 8, 2003 12:00 PM
would still reach a point where we didn't give a rip about civilian casualties. If North Korea launched a nuke at us....
These cost/benefit calculations...Jon Billheimer
Apr 8, 2003 8:24 AM
...are almost verbatim repeats of Robert Kaplan's justifications for U.S. armed military intervention as a tool of American foreign policy. If anyone thinks this is macabre, scary, or amoral at best...well, that's the official guiding line of the U.S. government's behaviour.
You are scaring me, tooContinental
Apr 8, 2003 8:56 AM
Our military is making great efforts to minimize civilian casualities. The intent is to eliminate the regime, not the civilians. This is not cultural cleansing or genocide. Do you understand the difference? What scares me is people who don't want to take the actions necessary to eliminate tyrants. Maybe if I changed the word "killed 10,000 innocent civilians" to "incurred significant collateral damage" my argument would be more palatable. But the facts are that we knew from the outset that civilians would die and Saddam's regime would be eliminated. I supported this action before it started, and I still support it now that there are dead civilians and dead forced conscripts.
Who do you think lived in that neighborhood?Alpedhuez55
Apr 8, 2003 7:14 AM
Actually there Saddams two sons were both wounded in assassination attempts in that neigborhood. It is not as friendly to them as you may think.

I wound not lump everyone who lives in an upscale neigborhood with Hussein though. I am sure there are a lot of members of the Bath Party who are hard working and stay affiliated with the party for self survival.

If this bombing did get its target and eliminate Saddam & Sons, it will save thousands of lives in the long run. It will be a bood thing.

Mike Y.
The problem with the Utilitarian approachHoopes of glory
Apr 8, 2003 7:41 AM
(greatest good/number) is that it rewards inaction. It's far too easy to do nothing watching the death toll rise, then play the numbers game you describe. And it only works at all if you ignore other options aside from killing vast numbers of people.
it was one big residence/restaurantDougSloan
Apr 8, 2003 7:54 AM
I saw last night a "before" photo of the target; it looked like a 20,000 square foot Beverly Hills estate.

Doug
The precision guided munitions............Sintesi
Apr 8, 2003 6:44 PM
It's a horror for sure Len, but is it outrageous in the larger sense of War? Looking back this has been one of or perhaps the "cleanest" wars our military has ever perpetrated. War in the historical sense, put against the sober and careful minded attacks the US and the Brits have inflicted today, one has to wonder how much worse it could be? Far worse if history is any indication. I think the "normal" respect for human life was sacrificed the moment we invaded, and the avg. Iraqi civilians' life has been prioritized UNDER the combatant troops. It's a sad fact but combatant troops are prejudiced toward themselves and that is not wrong. It's not supposed to be fair. They have to win. Innocent people have to die, one has to focus on the whole picture and ask oneself after accepting innocents will die: Were civilian casualties minimized? Did our guys make decisions that would save the most lives? I dunno. But I have faith in our guys I think they took these actions with this idea in mind. As lethal as our forces are it's amazing more haven't died. It will be a real testament in retrospect.
News Flashripper
Apr 8, 2003 6:19 AM
people died in the WAR in iraq today.

if a foreign army is coming to your city and you aren't part of the military...get out. if you cant leave because your evil dictator will not let you...maybe you should have gotten rid of your evil dictator.

if you are a reporter...dont hang out in a war zone unless you are surrounded by m1a1's and realize that you still might die.
does it matter?mohair_chair
Apr 8, 2003 6:22 AM
I think it would be great if they got him, again, but until I see his severed head on a post outside the palace gates, I'll refrain from celebrating.

I'm not sure it's all that important anymore. There seem to be plenty of loyalists around that will keep up the fight. And given the state of communications and the fact that Saddam sightings were rare before the war, will the Iraqi army and irregulars believe he is dead and give up the fight? Will civilians? I doubt it.
Worlds toughest job = Iraqi Information Minister.Spoke Wrench
Apr 8, 2003 7:50 AM
I think that it would be pretty tough to have to go on TV every day and sound convincing when you say the Americans are being slaughtered and repulsed while listening to the din of the Abrams tanks that are surrounding your building.
if they make a movie of this war...ClydeTri
Apr 8, 2003 7:52 AM
I could see Mel Brooks playing the Minister of INformation...
The guy's great.OldEdScott
Apr 8, 2003 8:07 AM
Case study in how to be a great flack. Man, a bomb goes off an he doesn't flinch. He lies through his teeth without so much as a smirk. I'm sure he's a thug, but he's the best damn spin doctor I ever saw. "Maybe in a couple of hours I will take you to the airport to prove to you what I say is true." LOL!
"All Hollywood lies!"DougSloan
Apr 8, 2003 8:17 AM
"The entire war isn't happening. It's made up on a Hollywood set." -- or something to that effect I heard him say. Huh?

He's sort of a cross between the guy in Monty Python who keeps wanting to fight after his arms and legs are chopped off, and Bill Clinton... :-)

Doiug
he would have madeClydeTri
Apr 8, 2003 8:22 AM
The Iraqi Minister of (dis)Information would have made a great press secretary for Clinton wouldnt he? :~)

I can hear him now...."those are not semen stains on that dress, it is mayonaise"....
"There is no dress. It is a fabrication. She neverOldEdScott
Apr 8, 2003 8:25 AM
wore a dress around the President." (Which could, conceivably, have been true!)
LOL! Perfect! nmOldEdScott
Apr 8, 2003 8:23 AM
they asked an american soldier yesterday...rufus
Apr 8, 2003 12:25 PM
what he thought of those statements, and he said, roughly, well of course he knows we're here, he's only three or four blocks away from our positions right now. and the interviewer asked if he was going over to pay him a visit, and the soldier said "sure".

i'd love to see that, the minister of disinformation on camera, telling everyone how there are no troops in baghdad, and a group of u.s. soldiers come up from behind and tap him on the shoulder. "hi, how you doing?"
Iraqi Information Minister - Give him an Oscar!PdxMark
Apr 8, 2003 11:32 AM
For best supporting role in an unbelievable situation...